Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim

[busterg]

Subbing

 

Just so you and I are clear my friend - I'm Spartacus!

[westlandbabe]

Hi everyone, thanks for the advice. I agree with you busterg that it is up to each of us as individuals to compile and justify their own research and I understand totally this is only a sounding board of people's experience; that's all I'm after really. Some input into what othes have encountered with Swift and outcomes, to see the way ahead for myself.

I think my previous post was slightly misleading in that I meant I signed my agreement 6 days after the new CCA 1974 regulations kicked in and I think KC is right, I have no way forward on this basis. I'm going to continue down the route tho of the disgusting way Swift have treated me, the glaringly obvious flaws in their agreement and unscrupulous dealings however, and see where that takes me. Hopefully my credit guy will be able to shed some more light on Monday on all this also.

Will be sure to keep you all posted.

KFC.......hmmmm, they just don't make it like they used to if you ask me:D but I for one would hate to learn the recipe, I would most definitely turn into the size of a house whilst never leaving the house making batches of chicken!

[busterg]

 

I'm going to continue down the route tho of the disgusting way Swift have treated me, the glaringly obvious flaws in their agreement and unscrupulous dealings however, and see where that takes me.

 

Now you have it WLB. Definatley a good place to concentrate your efforts and focus on.

 

KFC.......hmmmm, they just don't make it like they used to if you ask me:D but I for one would hate to learn the recipe, I would most definitely turn into the size of a house whilst never leaving the house making batches of chicken!

 

welcome to my world!

[landy_alert]

Gosh, what is it with you guys and KFC - disgusting stuff - yuck

[Doc2527]

It's great to see Suetonius taking an interest in our threads, a very knowledgeable contributor I feel.

 

Doc

[welshperson3]

Hi everyone, thanks for the advice. I agree with you busterg that it is up to each of us as individuals to compile and justify their own research and I understand totally this is only a sounding board of people's experience; that's all I'm after really. Some input into what othes have encountered with Swift and outcomes, to see the way ahead for myself.

I think my previous post was slightly misleading in that I meant I signed my agreement 6 days after the new CCA 1974 regulations kicked in and I think KC is right, I have no way forward on this basis. I'm going to continue down the route tho of the disgusting way Swift have treated me, the glaringly obvious flaws in their agreement and unscrupulous dealings however, and see where that takes me. Hopefully my credit guy will be able to shed some more light on Monday on all this also.

Will be sure to keep you all posted.

KFC.......hmmmm, they just don't make it like they used to if you ask me:D but I for one would hate to learn the recipe, I would most definitely turn into the size of a house whilst never leaving the house making batches of chicken!

 

 

Just a few points,and hopefully in the right direction.

 

1 the credit guy you seeing on Monday.

 

There are more unscrupulous claims management company's out there than there are loan company's.

So DO NOT sign anything or agree to anything on the day.listen to what he has to say then research the company and what he has said, then make the decision whether to go with them.

THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO GET RIPED OFF BY THEES COMPANY'S

 

2 whether your agreement is regulated or not this will apply to it and it is the biggest and most versatile tool available at this present time under the CCA. UNFAIR RELATIONSHIP research this and things will become clear.

 

3 a good place to start.

PRACTICE DIRECTION CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 2006 – UNFAIR RELATIONSHIPS

 

 

 

 

wp3

Edited April 16, 2010 by welshperson3
added point 3

[Smarterchick]

It's great to see Suetonius taking an interest in our threads, a very knowledgeable contributor I feel.

 

Doc

 

If he's lurking about - buyer beware!

[westlandbabe]

Thanks for that Welshperson; I've picked up the 'unfair relationship' aspect going through the thread and is down in bold in my notes for credit guy Monday. On that note, I am indeed treading carefully though he comes highly recommended from a relative who used him to deal with another unscrupulous crowd that go by the hilarious name of Welcome Finance!

 

I'm off to read up on the CCA in this fine weather! Enjoy your weekend everyone;)

[pkelly]

Sorry but I dont have any time to waste explaining as to who or what we are up to.

this is an open forum and as we All know Swift are monitoring it every day along with many legal people.

while so far it has been a godsend to a number of people, by if only moral and legal support.

It also has educated the public as well as the legal experts as to what this Swift bunch has been up to.

 

However I can assure you Swift will go down big time, esp after the American carry on yeaterday. people will sit up and take heed now more to the like of ourselves.

so as far as I am concerned I intend giving nothing away to aid Swift to defend themselves in the high court in N Ireland, as everyone will benifit from the outcome.

 

yes Sparkie does know what he is talking about, more so than even most of you know.

as for the mnd games etc, from even the "Sparkle "days in the swift nest they were believe me, in full swing proof is seen now by the different class of posts

 

I or Sparkie do not need to prove to anyone, anything, time will tell why.

If you are 100% behind us get on with posting all the wrongs Swift have done to you and your familys.

let the Public know how these ***ards have treated you and do something constructive like ring all the goverment bodies and even swift themselves to complain.

as for me `Adios` I am gone, but will be back to arrange a plane trip to go to Swifts wake "party in Ireland before tha funeral" 8-)

ps iceland and their wee bang will be nothing to the swift explosion. but at least we will be able to fly? not sure about the swift crew though

Edited April 17, 2010 by pkelly

[Sparkie1723]

Double post sorry...

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Sorry but I dont have any time to waste explaining as to who or what we are up to.

this is am open forum and as we All know Swift are monitoring it every day along with many legal people.

while so far it has been a godsend to a number of people, by moral and legal support.

It also has educated the public as well as the legal experts as to what this Swift bunch has been up to.

However I can assure you Swift will go down big time, esp after the American carry on yeaterday. people will sit up and take heed now more to the like of ourselves.

so as far as I am concerned I intend giving nothing away to aid Swift to defend themselves in the high court in N Ireland, as everyone will benifit from the outcome.

yes Sparkie does know what he is talking about, more so than even most of you know.

as for the mnd games etc, from even the Sparkle days they were believe me in full swing, proof is seen now by the different class of posts

I or Sparkie do not need to prove to anyone, anything, time will tell.

If you are 100% behind us get on with posting all the wrongs Swift have done to you and your familys.

let the Public know how these ***ards have treated you and do something constructive like ring all the goverment bodies and swift themselves to complain

as for me Adios I am gone, but will be back to arrange a plane trip to go to Swifts wake "party in Ireland before tha funeral" 8-)

 

 

"YIPPEE I YAY".... YIPPEE I OOOOHHHH!!!!

 

sparkie

[westlandbabe]

Ummmm, incase you hadn't noticed pkelly, for over a day now the rest of us have got on with posting:confused: I really don't think it's helpful or constructive to try and draw out another slagging match as to what this forum is about or who is doing what against Swift. I repeat, if you've nothing helpful advice wise to to say, then heed your own advice and say nothing at all. I've been enjoying the advice of busterg and welshperson who have been helpful without 'giving anything away'. It can be done you know!!

[Doc2527]

Hi PKelly

 

What did I miss???

 

What happened in the states yesterday?

 

Doc:)

[Suetonius]

3 a good place to start.

PRACTICE DIRECTION CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 2006 – UNFAIR RELATIONSHIPS

 

 

 

 

wp3

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/pdf/practice_directions/pd_part07b.pdf

 

and a little more light hearted reading

 

http://www.newham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5FDEE9F6-7EEF-4B26-B53C-A419BC5C8D41/0/OFTUnfairRelationships.pdf

[Doc2527]

Hi PKelly

 

Was that the Goldman Sachs story?

 

Doc:cool:

[westlandbabe]

Have a look at Goldman and the counting beads I'm guessing Doc!

[westlandbabe]

Ooops, sorry Doc didn't see your post above before I posted mine in reply. Stupid laptop isn't refreshing quick enough me thinks!

[Marky1701]

The Wall Street bank Goldman Sachs, long considered a shrewd winner from the financial crisis, was slapped with potentially devastating fraud charges todayas US regulators accused the firm of fiddling investors out of more than $1bn (£640m) by wilfully mis-marketing toxic sub-prime mortgage-related securities.

A 22-page lawsuit filed by the US securities and exchange commission (SEC) charged Goldman Sachs with working with a controversial US hedge fund, Paulson & Co, to structure and sell a complex package of mortgages to clients while Paulson took a "short" position betting that the very same mortgages would fail.

Within minutes of the charges emerging, Goldman's shares plunged by 13% as investors feared a shattering blow to the investment bank's credibility. The SEC's accusations are levelled against the firm as a whole and against a French employee, Fabrice Tourre, 31, who is now an executive director in Goldman's London office.

The allegations revolve around a collateralised debt obligation called Abacus 2007-AC1 that was created by Goldman three years ago and proved a spectacularly poor investment for clients. Within nine months, 99% of the mortgages in the package had been downgraded and investors lost more than $1bn. Paulson, in contrast, made a profit of about the samRobert Khuzami, director of the SEC's enforcement division, said: "The product was new and complex but the deception and conflicts are old and simple. Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio."

Goldman swiftly denied any wrongdoing, saying: "The SEC's charges are completely unfounded in law and fact and we will vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation."

The bank was among the few Wall Street firms to avoid significant losses on mortgages during the credit crunch. But the bank has been dogged by accusations of betting against clients and its insistence on paying industry-topping bonuses to its staff has turned it into a lightening rod for public outrage over perceived greed.

Tourre, the Frenchman allegedly at the centre of the scandal, was educated at the elite École Centrale Paris and at California's Stanford University. In 2007, he was a vice-president at Goldman's head office in New York, where he co-ordinated the creation of the contentious product.

In a January 2007 email sent by Tourre to a friend shortly before creating Abacus, he wrote: "More and more leverage in the system, the whole building is about to collapse anytime now ... only potential survivor the fabulous Fab[rice Tourre] ... standing in the middle of all these complex, highly leveraged, exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding the implications of all these monstruosities [sic]!!!" Losers in the deal include a Dusseldorf-based bank, IKB, which lost $150m, and the Dutch firm ABN Amro, later bought by Royal Bank of Scotland, which acted as an unwitting conduit between the parties involved.

The SEC alleges Goldman stuffed the Abacus portfolio with homeloans written in states such as Arizona, California, Florida and Nevada that suffered the worst of the US housing crash. Goldman told clients that an independent firm, ACA Management, was selecting the contents. In a 178-page memo to clients, it made no mention of Paulson, which, in fact, was heavily involved in selecting the mortgages. Goldman was paid $15m by Paulson for structuring and marketing Abacus.

The involvement of Paulson & Co is significant. The fund's billionaire boss, John Paulson, became a Wall Street celebrity by earning nearly $4bn in 2008 by correctly predicting that the US mortgage market would collapse. Among his lucrative "short" positions were bets that UK banks including Lloyds, Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS would run into trouble.

For Goldman, the SEC charges are a huge headache. The bank's chief executive, Lloyd Blankfein, has spent months trying to soothe public anger over Goldman's conduct. He apologised in November for the firm's involvement in "things that were clearly wrong", although he attracted derision by remarking, in an apparent joke, that the bank was doing "God's work".e amount.

[Suetonius]

So it's not reported on the news or internet yet?

 

When it is, you might find it here

 

Northern Ireland Court Service

[Suetonius]

Hey PK

 

Ná glac pioc comhairle gan comhairle ban.

 

.......and Ive just kicked the cat out for the night. lol

 

I prefer

S toigh leam briosgaidean gu mòr

[Suetonius]

Usually the only situation where an equitable assignment becomes a legal one is where it was always intended that it would be a legal assignment but there is some delay in giving notice to the debtor.

 

Or in the case of UK Securitisation, a contractual agreement between lender and spv which specifically states that in the case of insolvency of the lender a notice (of assignment a.k.a sale) will be sent to the borrower, thus making the equitable assignment into a legal assignment

Edited April 17, 2010 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

all other creditors have to give notice of assignment that is a presumption of fact in all cases as has been ruled in countless cases....Can you explain why should Swift not be required to do so?

 

Only if a legal assignment. Notice is not required by law for an equitable assignment

Edited April 17, 2010 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

It's great to see Suetonius taking an interest in our threads, a very knowledgeable contributor I feel.

 

Doc

 

Thanks for the warm welcome... Sadly I do have a habit of upsetting people, whilst I play my role of devil's advocate:cool:

[Suetonius]

If he's lurking about - buyer beware!

 

Caveat emptor to you too

 

(before anyone wants to comment, I am friends with SC)

[bethsophie]

Well done Sparkie and everyone

 

A brilliant move..!

 

We would all be lost without your inspiration........I certainly would not have got as far with this as I have.

 

As always best wishes

 

Dougal

 

PS: Criminal case looms on the horizon for our friends........at last they will be named and shamed!

 

 

 

Hi

Sorry I have not been on here for a while, here is an update the court gave us a stay of 4 weeks up to the 23rd feb it then went back to court and the judge ruled in the favour of swift advances because he said due to my brother not turning up, Swift know that he is dead they drove him to it !

Anyway they repossed the property on 7th April.

They will not speak to me or answer any of my emails.

I am going to fight this and will not give up until I get justice